Victims and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)

Jack Rankin Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mike Wood]

Before any observers start panicking that the shadow Justice Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, has really let himself go over the weekend, I should say that he sends his apologies to the Committee, although it is not clear whether that is for his absence due to illness or for lumbering Members with me this morning.

I rise to speak in support of Opposition amendments 9 to 12. In the last sitting, we spent considerable time considering the role and involvement of victims and their families in the sentencing process. We spoke about measures aimed at making it as meaningful as possible by both involving them and trying to ensure that offenders are present. Disappointingly, we were unable to secure changes that we believe would strengthen the voice of victims and their families.

Across the criminal justice system, we have seen considerable effort made to improve the experience of victims and their families, including through the introduction of screens, the pre-recording of evidence, the work of organisations such as Victim Support, and the many ways in which the Victims’ Commissioner has expanded the rights of victims and their families and the services available to them. However, there is cross-party agreement on the need to go further. We welcome many of the measures that the Government are introducing, including through clause 11, but victims and their families are not just interested in what the processes of the criminal justice system are like. Although the views of victims and their families are not the only ones we should seek, we really want them to have a fair and reasonable experience of the justice system, and to consider its outcomes to be fair and reasonable.

The unduly lenient sentence scheme provides victims, their families and others with a route to redress when they feel that the outcome does not represent justice. However, it is clear from the evidence we heard last week, and from victims’ family members whom the shadow Minister and I have spoken to, that the current scheme is woefully inadequate. Witnesses who spoke for victims during our evidence sessions, as well as the Victims’ Commissioner and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, all agreed that the current time window is simply not fair.

As Paula and Glenn from Justice for Victims said, echoing what Katie Brett from the group had originally said, 28 days is the same amount of time people get to return something to a shop. There is an inherent unfairness, because there is an exceptional circumstances clause under which a criminal gets no time limit—none at all. The Bill will amend the unduly lenient sentence scheme, but only for the Government’s Law Officers—not in relation to victims and families. We can see no good reason why we should not act now, with legislation before us, to improve the scheme for victims and families too.

Our amendment 10 would allow victims, or a deceased victim’s next of kin, to request a review up to one year after sentencing. Giving them time to act would show that we understand that this can be a deeply traumatic time for many people. Many of us will have had victims come to our advice surgeries soon after sentencing, but outside the 28-day period in which we are able to offer any help. When we have spoken to victims, it has been clear that, first, they were not aware of that, and secondly, because of their state of mind after the trial and sentencing, they were not focusing on such things immediately. Therefore, it is reasonable to extend that period.

Katie Brett started a petition to change the law, which has gathered more than 14,000 signatures. Katie is doing that in memory of her sister Sasha, who was brutally murdered; she was stabbed more than 100 times, raped, and her body was set on fire. Katie has every reason to believe that her sister’s killer should have received a whole-life order, but will never get the chance to legally test that. Ayse Hussein, also from Justice for Victims, had a similar experience, and the group is campaigning for a change in the law.

I am sure the Minister will say that the Law Commission is looking into unduly lenient sentencing and that we must let it do its work, but anyone reading that review will see that it is primarily about criminal appeals from the viewpoint of offenders. The consultation document makes it clear that the Law Commission does not think there is anything wrong with the way in which the ULS operates at the moment, and it is not clear how it can possibly reach that view. Why does the Minister need the Law Commission to tell her and us that this needs to change? The Government are giving the appearance of being dependent on reviews to make up their mind on quite simple principles, but particularly anything significant in the judicial sphere. Here is an opportunity to be bold, and to apply good instincts, which I know the Minister has and am confident would be similar to ours on this issue. We hope that the Government will accept the amendment.

Amendment 12 addresses the equally important issue of awareness. Of course, a short time window creates a greater risk of someone never being made aware, but either way, we need a more robust mechanism of notification, so that victims know of the possibilities. The amendment would introduce a new duty on the Crown Prosecution Service to inform victims, or a deceased victim’s next of kin, within 10 working days of sentencing that they can apply to the ULS. This is about enforceable rights. A legal right means little if the person entitled to it does not know that it exists. Victims deserve to be told what their options are clearly and promptly. The amendment would ensure that no one missed their opportunity for justice simply because no one had bothered to tell them. Surely we do not need the Law Commission to tell us that this is the right thing to do.

Finally, amendment 9 would make a straightforward but crucial change—to increase the time limit for referring a sentence under the unduly lenient sentence scheme from 28 days to 56 days. This is about achieving simple fairness by extending more broadly the Government’s measure to award more time to their own Law Officers.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

We welcome the provisions in clause 11, which relate to extending the time period in which the unduly lenient sentence scheme may be applied for. However, as the official Opposition, we still have concerns that the window of opportunity for victims to raise an appeal remains the same. The scheme can only be referred to for some of the most serious crimes—crimes that are likely to leave victims and their families with a degree of trauma or grief. How can we possibly expect that, within just a month of a sentence being issued, gathering together a clear, strong case for a sentence’s being unduly lenient would be on the minds of victims?

We also know that many victims do not know about the scheme, or the opportunity to appeal. Baroness Newlove said that victims “really do not know” about it. She said:

“Once they leave the courtroom, it can take a long time, but the clock is ticking.”—[Official Report, Victims and Courts Public Bill Committee, 17 June 2025; c. 8, Q15.]

During the oral evidence session, many notable sources raised issues with the current timeframe. Dame Nicole Jacobs, Domestic Abuse Commissioner for England and Wales, described the current system as “disorienting” and said that

“we need to do so much more to put in place solid advice and support for victims. Those 28 days seem to fly in the face of that.”––[Official Report, Victims and Courts Public Bill Committee, 17 June 2025; c. 9, Q15.]

Extending the window of opportunity will also surely allow a greater base of evidence from previous cases to be compiled, to bolster a referral under the scheme. It is only right that we allow victims, and the organisations supporting them, the time and space to make their case as strong as possible, ensuring that everything is laid on the table for the Attorney General to consider. Let us place victims and families at the heart of the unduly lenient sentence scheme, where they should be.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I place on the record our well wishes to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, and welcome the Opposition Whip, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, in his place today.

On amendments 9 and 11, let me start by thanking the Justice for Victims campaign and, in particular, Katie Brett, whom I met again recently and whom I commend for her tireless campaigning for reform of the unduly lenient sentence scheme in honour of her sister Sasha.

As the Opposition Whip mentioned, the Law Commission is undertaking a review of criminal appeals, and it has launched a public consultation inviting views on a range of reforms to the ULS scheme, including extending the time limit. The consultation is open to all and has been extended to 27 June. I urge him and anyone else with an interest to submit their views, if they have not already done so. The Government will review the recommendations by the Law Commission and act if necessary. Parliament intended the ULS scheme to be an exceptional power, and any expansion of the scheme must be carefully considered. Therefore, we will holistically consider the review’s final recommendations following publication of the report.

On amendments 10 and 12, we recognise the exceptionally difficult circumstances for victims and their families in making a referral within 28 days. We heard about the impact that that is having on them directly in our evidence sessions last week. That is why anyone can ask the Attorney General or the Solicitor General to consider referring a sentence to the Court of Appeal. That is open to not just victims or relatives of a victim, but members of the public, the Crown Prosecution Service and parliamentarians—I myself referred cases to the Attorney General and Solicitor General when I was a Back-Bench Opposition MP—thereby taking the burden off victims and their loved ones.

The Court of Appeal is less likely to increase a sentence after more time has passed, because of the double jeopardy risks of sentencing an offender twice. Particularly if enough time has passed that the offender has already completed their sentence, the Court may actually reduce an extra sentence in order to reflect that. That means that an extended time limit would have a more limited impact and, worse, it would create false hope for victims, leading them to delay requests to review and then retraumatising them, with uncertainty hanging over them for up to a year after the trial, when they are trying to move on with their lives. For that reason, it is important that sentences are certain and not subject to change for too long a period.

Let me be clear: it is imperative that we provide better and clearer communication with victims by criminal justice agencies, including in relation to how and when information is given to victims and their families about the unduly lenient sentence scheme after sentencing. We heard loud and clear from victims last week about how the lack of communication and of awareness about the scheme was one of the issues. Under the victims code, the police-run witness care units are required to tell victims about the unduly lenient sentence scheme when they provide a victim or family with information about the sentence. We have already commenced the obligation in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 on those who provide victims code services to comply with the code unless there is a good reason not to do so. That ensures that agencies, including the police, are held to account for providing victims and their families with the service that they should expect. Once the new victims code is in force, we will also implement the code awareness duty, placing a legal responsibility on criminal justice agencies, including the police and the CPS, to promote the victims code to the public and victims of crime and ensure that every victim and their family are aware of their rights.

Victims and Courts Bill (First sitting)

Jack Rankin Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

Q I have two questions. The first relates to queries raised around the associate standard, for which you are looking to recruit. Are there any minimum standards that you would look for in any candidate for the new associate roles, and what is the current vacancy rate at the CPS that we need to fill through this? The second question concerns private prosecutions. Do you think there will be any potential impact on the CPS in terms of an increase in the use of private provision and prosecutions?

Sarah Hammond: If I may, I will take the first question in two parts. I do not have that figure on the current recruitment rate with me today, but we can write in and let you have it. On minimum standards, we would have an interview process for people to become Crown prosecutors. There would be minimum standards for people to pass that interview stage, and we would not lower them just because we are broadening the pool of Crown prosecutors. It is important that professional standards do not slip.

I am not aware of any reason why private prosecutions would increase as a result of the particular recruitment issues, but if that is problem, obviously we will look into it, and work with our colleagues on that as well.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

Q A quick question: would you support the publication of sentencing remarks to support transparency, and to enable victims to reflect on what was said in court?

Sarah Hammond: Ultimately, that is a matter for the Government. There is clearly an argument for victims to be able to see that justice has been done. It will also potentially help with appeals for unduly lenient sentences if victims are able to access the sentencing remarks, so they can see the basis upon which the sentence has been passed.

[The Chair]

If there are no further questions, I thank the witness for her evidence this morning.

Examination of Witnesses

Dame Nicole Jacobs, Baroness Newlove and Katie Kempen gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

There are three people on this panel. Please be focused.

[Jack Rankin]

Q I have a question for Baroness Newlove, in the first instance. I understand that there are new measures in the Bill that allow you to look into individual cases for the first time. Is that something you broadly welcome, and how do you envisage that working?

Baroness Newlove: I broadly welcome it, with a bit of a caveat, as I am the victims’ champion. Currently, I have to explain to every victim who writes in that I cannot get involved in individual cases under the statute. That is not to say that I do not pass on the information to Ministers and ask them to help and support. I am very concerned about how we may class victims under two tiers, and that is what we have to look at—it will not be me, but the future Victims’ Commissioner.

I receive hundreds of letters, even in the House of Lords, and I am trying to separate them using three criteria. First, does the correspondence highlight a gap in the policy? That is about a victim’s right to a review, and if it is not right, I raise it with the Minister or the Attorney General. Secondly, does the correspondence highlight a failure to deliver in line with policy? I see cases that seemingly meet the ASB case review threshold, but the local authority has added further obstacles, which does not help.

Thirdly, and finally, does the correspondence highlight policy that perverts outcomes for victims? By that, I mean that the court orders compensation, which is deducted from criminal injuries compensation—that is another debate that I will not go into. In some cases—or in the majority of cases, if we are perfectly honest—the victim waits years, because it is a drip feed. If we are looking at funding, there is over £1 billion outstanding in unpaid fines and compensation. I would like the courts to act and get the money off the offender so that it goes to victims, who have to wait too long.

Those are the criteria I am looking at. It will take a while, but it is paramount that the Victims’ Commissioner sets guidelines. I hear that line, “Does not look at individual cases”, but my correspondents think I can, and it really hurts me when I have to say that I cannot as Victims’ Commissioner—it is all the jargon and waffle that we do. I ensure that victims truly understand that I will signpost their correspondence to the people in charge. I will show them, and they will get transparency in that way.

[Jack Rankin]

Am I out of time, Dr Murrison?

[The Chair]

You are, but you can ask a question very briefly.

[Jack Rankin]

I was just going to offer the panel the opportunity to say whether there is anything not in the Bill that they would like to see included.

[The Chair]

I think we will pass on that, if we may. I will go to our last question from Tristan Osborne, but we have to be quick.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q Before I ask my question, I declare my interest as a member of the Prison Officers Association, a former POA branch chair, and a former prison officer at the rank of SO trained in control and restraint, PAVA and SPEAR.

I want to ask a specific question on the Opposition amendment on restraint and gagging in court. I understand the Government’s position, allowing reasonable force at the judge’s discretion. As you will know from policing history, the use of force is on a spectrum from minimal right up to the top end. I have never heard of being able to gag. It is certainly not a technique that is used in the Prison Service; it is not in the “Use of force” manual and it is not part of the training. Were the Opposition amendment to be made, how would you suggest that it be done? What do you think the impact on the courtroom more widely would be if we were to take forward gagging? Do you believe it is even legal under current rules?

Genna Telfer: Obviously it is not something we are trained in, or something we do, so there would be a whole training implication. We do use spit hoods—that is probably as close to that that we get, in terms of putting something over someone’s head, but that does not affect sound and even those are quite controversial, so they are used quite sparingly. It is difficult, because if we did not do that, we are back to the disruption point and potentially removing people straightaway for contempt of court.

On the legality, I do not know—it is something that we would have to have a look into. If it were agreed, it would need to be checked whether it was legal, and then there would be a whole range of training. But that is not something policing would do; it would be the Prison Service involved in that, rather than us.

I can talk about my own experience. I was an officer safety trainer, so I have quite a lot of knowledge and, again, that would be really difficult to do. We use leg restraints, handcuffs and things, but to restrain someone effectively and to gag them to move them into a courtroom, I think would be really challenging.

Clare Moody: I go back to the point that I was making earlier about not making this a theatre show. I think that would somehow make it a spectacle, and it puts the perpetrator at the centre of all the attention. As I said earlier, this is about justice for the victims, and I think that there would be real problems with that. Adding to the points that Genna made about the practicalities of it, making a show of it, or making theatre in the courtroom, I do not think is the appropriate thing to do.

[Jack Rankin]

Q To pick up on this theme, Assistant Chief Constable, the police show all the time that it is possible to move and restrain people legally, do they not?

Genna Telfer: Yes.

[Jack Rankin]

Q So how is this different?

Genna Telfer: It is not; it is exactly the same, but we do not move them easily. If someone does not want to be moved, there is a risk to the people moving them, as well as a risk to the individual. Obviously, we train and we do a lot of work to make sure that that injury is limited, but people do get injured when we try to move someone forcefully, on both sides.

[Jack Rankin]

Q The focus of what we are trying to do in this amendment is to put the victims at the heart of it. The police and crime commissioner talked about this potentially turning into—I do not think you used the word “farce”, so I do not want to put that—

Clare Moody: I did not, no. I talked about making a spectacle of it.

[Jack Rankin]

Yes—sorry. That is why in the amendment we have suggested that victims need to be consulted about what would happen. Obviously that would be a risk, but that should be the victim’s choice. That should not be for the establishment—the criminal justice system or politicians. We should actively say, “This is the potential risk of this. Do you want that to happen?” They should be the people at the heart of our conversation, should they not?

Genna Telfer: I think they should be at the heart of the conversation, but I do not think they should be the decision maker. If you have someone who is so violent that it presents a risk, effectively making other people victims—prison officers or whoever—there should be a decision either by the Prison Service or by the judge that, “This is too risky to do, and it is going to cause more problems than it is going to solve.” I accept that we would want to consult the victim and put them at the heart of it, but I do not think they should be the decision maker in that case.

Clare Moody: I absolutely echo the point that Genna has made. It is one thing saying that this might be the outcome, and that it depends how the outcome is displayed in terms of what that could look like in a courtroom, but there could be the danger of retraumatising victims if this becomes all about the disruption in the courtroom at the point of sentencing. I think there are real problems with that.

Genna Telfer: I do not disagree with the principle of it. I just think it would be very difficult to do.

[Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)]

Q Good morning, both; thank you for appearing this morning. There are lots of cases in my constituency, and I am sure in those of other Members as well, where housing associations are not taking strong enough action against tenants who are perpetrators of antisocial behaviour. We have heard from you and from the previous panel; there are lots of different agencies involved. How do you see the role of the police working alongside the Victims’ Commissioner, housing providers and other agencies to combat antisocial behaviour? How do you think the Bill could help make that relationship and partnership working more fruitful?

Genna Telfer: We obviously have really close working relationships with our partners. There should always be a number of people around the table trying to work out the best option to deal with these cases—from a problem-solving point of view, not just in the short term. Rather than just solving the immediate problem by, for example, moving people from one address to another, they might ask, “How do we manage this for the future?”

In my experience, I do not think there is an unwillingness from housing associations and local authorities to get involved. I think sometimes there are just challenges with being able to resolve some of the issues. The new power for the Victims’ Commissioner on the requirement to give a reasonable response as to why something has or has not been done will be really helpful, because it will provide more transparency and scrutiny of the problems we are trying to resolve. I do not think there is an unwillingness; I just think there are some challenges in the system that make it difficult.

Victims and Courts Bill (Second sitting)

Jack Rankin Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

Q I have a few questions. First, on unduly lenient sentencing, is there currently an issue primarily with education of this scheme? Is there a broad awareness among victims that the scheme currently exists? Or does more time needed to be added on? If it is an education issue, that is fundamentally different from saying, “Add on a few more weeks and it might solve the problem.” Fundamentally, is this an education issue?

The second question is about the Victims’ Commissioner. That is obviously a welcome step. Is there any other element where you think the Victims’ Commissioner should get more responsibilities? They have to report annually and will have to take into account. Should they have broader powers, maybe to look at family courts and give a viewpoint? You mentioned that earlier. Do you think the Bill goes far enough?

My third question is about sentencing hearings. There are obviously going to be differences between where someone who is sentenced for affray or a violent offence and where it is a sexual offence. Are there nuances with the victims? Do some victims not want to see the offender in the courtroom? Should that be a mitigating circumstance in all cases for them not to appear? For instance, you mentioned a case example of harassment. In that case, should we give more focus to the courts to say, “You should not actually be attending this court hearing”? That would be almost a reversal of this policy, so that we are putting the victim before the requirement, if that makes sense.

Andrea Simon: With the unduly lenient sentencing scheme, it is both things. It is certainly a communications issue. We do know of victims and survivors who realise only at the last minute that they are eligible, so they have run out of time, and it has been a desperate dash to get an application in. We should end that because it is not serving anybody. There is the point about extending it, but it is not an either/or; it is also about the communications, the length of time, and letting people know that this exists.

I was part of a sentencing review panel, and a lot of evidence came through about the complete confusion that victims find themselves in when it comes to trying to get information. There is not one source; there are many different places where information can be fed through. You are often trying to fight to find somebody who will be able to help you. It is very inconsistent and patchy currently. There is a lot of strength to the sentencing review’s call to review all the communication channels and look at how we can best streamline them and how they are most effective for victims and survivors.

There is also a wider public education piece about what is going on with sentencing. I would not say that most members of the public are that well informed, because where would they get that information? It is only once you are in the system that you start to realise how complicated it can be to get the information that you need. We have to marry that with being able to tailor the needs of individual victims. There is no homogeneous victim group. Different victims will want to know information, but the offer should be there, and we should empower victims as much as we possibly can within the process.

Very quickly, I definitely support the extension and expansion of Victims’ Commissioner’s powers. I would potentially question how the Victims’ Commissioner will be able to work on systemic issues with the current level of resourcing that is committed. There is not necessarily a proportionate increase in the resourcing for the commissioner to be able to take on individual cases and look at systemic issues as well. We need to be clear about managing expectations, and potentially about what the expansion of the Victims’ Commissioner’s role can deliver.

Suky Bhaker: I very much agree with Andrea on the sentencing. As mentioned, there is an education piece there. Victims are not aware, or are made aware far too late in comparison with offenders’ rights. There is merit to increasing the timeframe as well.

We welcome the expansion of the Victims’ Commissioner’s powers, particularly in relation to the victims code. Less than a third of victims are aware of their rights under the victims code. That is corroborated by service users at the Suzy Lamplugh Trust. It is pivotal for that information —that education piece—to be there and for it to be monitored for greater accountability and transparency.

I think the provisions can go further. We have spoken a lot about family courts, which is absolutely right. We need to consider that part of the Bill, and, I would argue, civil courts. We see stalkers using civil courts as a legitimate means to continue stalking their victims through vexatious claims. Often, they have no recourse to justice when a criminal investigation is ongoing at the same time. We think that needs to be better explored in the Bill.

Farah Nazeer: On lenient sentencing, there is no silver bullet. It is probably threefold. First, it is awareness and education, as you rightly say. Secondly, it is time. Thirdly, it is support: support to understand what the process looks like, to go through it and to hold your nerve. It is all that emotional support that sits around it. There is a threefold set of interventions that needs to happen.

I would absolutely welcome the expansion of the Victims’ Commissioner’s role to look at family courts and what happens within that setting, but that will be possible only if the office is resourced to meet the requirements and the ambitions set out in the Bill. That comes back to the resourcing question.

On perpetrators being in court for sentencing, if you start off with a victim-centred approach, that is a good way to be led—what does the victim feel? There will invariably be crime types, such as the crime types that we work with involving women who have experienced male violence of some description—VAWG—where there should be some form of directive that alerts courts to the fact that they really do need to check in. They need to ask the questions. We know that, even where there is guidance, practice directions and training, it does not always manifest in the everyday practice of courts. I think a really important part is thinking about what monitoring there might be, as well as the robust mechanisms that you might be able to put in place to ensure that this actually happens and meets the ambitions, so that there is ultimately some form of accountability framework.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

Q Just to pick up on this point, as well as tabling the extension to 56 days, the Opposition have also taken up the point that the witnesses mentioned about awareness. With amendment 12, we are trying to create an obligation for the Crown Prosecution Service to write to victims within 10 working days. Will that assuage your concerns that the main concern is awareness, rather than the timeframe?

[The Chair]

Very briefly, if you would, as we are running out of time.

Farah Nazeer: I think it will help. We work with loads of women who are in that setting, and when you are in that setting, you need more than one way to contact someone. It could be an email, a phone call or straight afterwards—there are lots of interventions. Again, these kinds of issues do not afford themselves a silver bullet, so having multiple interventions to ensure that the survivor knows is really important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)]

Q Thank you for giving evidence today. It is important that we do not forget the plight of men and boys who are affected by violent or sexual crime. We need to make sure there are clear pathways for those men to secure justice and support. You have made it clear that you welcome the helpline. How do you think we can make sure that the helpline and the victim contact scheme reach all eligible victims, including men from marginalised, disadvantaged and working-class backgrounds? How do you think we could do that?

Mark Brooks: I work in wider policy around men’s health and I have been helping the Government on the men’s health strategy call for evidence, which is out now. In terms of language, I often see literature in which men are not visually present, so it is important that men in all their shapes, sizes and guises are visible. Also, there needs to be more outreach, often targeting where men go, not where you think they should go. Leaving things in libraries and GP surgeries, for example, will not reach men. We need far better promotion online and through community groups, barbers and sports clubs—Facebook is also really important for men—basically reaching out to where men go.

There is a huge growth in community-based support charities for men, which have grown exponentially in the last five years—things like Men’s Sheds, Andy’s Man Club, Talk Club and so forth. Some of them are in the room next door, giving a presentation about the men’s health strategy, so use those. The justice system and the people within it can be smarter in reaching out to non-statutory organisations.

[Jack Rankin]

Q As the official Opposition, we have tabled an amendment to increase the force with which the justice system can compel the convicted to come to their sentencing hearings. We are particularly keen to make sure there is a duty to consult the victim or their family, where the victim is deceased. Is that something you would support?

Mark Brooks: Yes, in principle. I come back to my point about the importance of making sure victims feel that justice is being done, as well as seeing it being done.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Q Do you have a view on whether parental responsibility restrictions should be extended beyond those convicted of sexual offences to include those convicted of violent offences?

Mark Brooks: The issue is where you would draw the line. It depends on the violent offences, and against whom they are committed. I mentioned the wider work I have been doing on men’s health and the criminal justice system. You do not want a situation where men who have gone to prison and are going through a rehabilitation process for violent crimes, but not against their children, are not able to rebuild their relationship with their children. We have found that a lot of men in prison want to be present dads, even when they are in prison, which means they want to re-engage with their children when they come out of prison.

Crime and Policing Bill (Ninth sitting)

Jack Rankin Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

I welcome clause 56 and schedule 8, and they have my full backing.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan, and to follow the powerful and well-researched contribution from the hon. Member for Southend West and Leigh.

In the digital age, the non-consensual capture and distribution of intimate images and the act of voyeurism have become all too common. Clause 56, which seeks to confront these violations and better protect individuals’ privacy and dignity, is one that I am happy to support, and I thank the Minister for so clearly setting out the case. The clause expands existing laws to criminalise the non-consensual taking of intimate images, including instances such as downblousing, the creation and distribution of digitally altered images such as deepfakes without consent, and the installation of equipment intended to capture intimate images without consent. All are in response to the recommendation from the Law Commission’s 2022 report on intimate image abuse.

The digital landscape has facilitated new forms of abuse, often with devastating consequences. Refuge has reported that one in 14 adults in England and Wales has experienced threats to share intimate images—that is 4.4 million people. The Revenge Porn Helpline has detailed the rise in those figures—it received nearly 19,000 reports in 2023, marking a 106% increase from 2022, and a tenfold rise over five years.

I also welcome the Minister framing this crime in the Government’s violence against women and girls strategy. There is a clear gender disparity when it comes to this crime. In 71% of cases, the victim is female and in over 81% of cases, the perpetrator is male. Those statistics underscore the urgent need for legal reforms to address and deter such abuses effectively, and to protect women and girls overwhelmingly. However, as we have heard frequently in Committee, it will also be critical that the measures are matched with improved enforcement. The sharing of intimate images has been illegal since 2015, and threatening to share intimate images has been a crime since 2021 but, shamefully, perpetrators are rarely held to account.

Data published by Refuge in 2023 showed that conviction rates for intimate abuse remain woefully low, with only 4% of cases that are reported to the police resulting in perpetrators being charged. I share Refuge’s view that that must improve. I was also shocked to learn that there remains a gap in the law where non-consensual images remain on perpetrators’ devices even after a conviction. That must be incredibly distressing for those affected by this crime. I ask the Minister to outline what provisions are in place to protect the dignity of victims, so that perpetrators are compelled to delete any non-consensual images.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the hon. Members who have contributed to the discussion, which has been deeply moving at times, particularly when it has touched on the impact on victims in all our constituencies and how widespread and horrific the problem is. That stresses the importance of us tackling it in the Bill.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, mentioned sextortion, as did other hon. Members. It is a growing problem. Just this week, its impact—on young men as well as young women—was highlighted on “Good Morning Britain”. Sextortion is already covered by existing offences; we feel that it is already tackled. We are aware that it happens primarily online on social media platforms. Thankfully, the codes of practice that Ofcom is introducing under the powers in the Online Safety Act 2023 will compel platforms to do more to tackle this horrific abuse. However, it is already a crime, and I stress that any victim or survivor who is struggling with it should report it to the relevant authorities—to the police and to the social media platforms directly—because action should be taken to tackle it and the powers and offences to do so are available. These crimes have caused tragic suicides, and I would encourage anyone struggling to reach out and tell someone to contact the Revenge Porn Helpline, which is there to offer assistance and support. It is a brilliant resource, as has been highlighted.

The hon. Member for Windsor asked about deprivation orders, I believe, and how we can ensure that these images are removed from devices so that victims are not retraumatised but protected. We are updating sentencing guidelines, to ensure that that measure is available to the courts—that devices can be taken off perpetrators and the images removed so that victims retain their dignity and are not being revictimised consistently.

This has been a very important discussion, highlighting just how important these measures are. I commend this clause and schedule to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 56 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 8 agreed to.

Clause 57

Exposure

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

The clause updates the offence of exposure set out in section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The current legislation criminalises a person who intentionally exposes their genitals intending that someone will see them and experience alarm or distress. With technologies ever expanding, the last Conservative Government’s efforts to modernise the legal framework in response to the Law Commission’s 2021 report “Modernising Communications Offences” included the addition of a cyber-flashing offence aimed at better addressing the realities of digital abuse and ensuring that the law keeps pace with the increasing use of technology to commit sexual offences.

The clause rightly expands that to cover not just situations where the individual exposes their genitals to cause alarm or distress, but those where they do so for the purpose of sexual gratification and are reckless as to whether the exposure may cause alarm, distress or humiliation to someone who sees it. That follows the Law Commission’s reporting that it had received evidence indicating that limiting the offence to cases where there was intent to cause alarm or distress was too restrictive. It found that motivations such as seeking sexual gratification or aiming to humiliate the victim were also significant factors behind exposure-related behaviour. The Minister made a clear case for this change to the law, but also set out the impact that such behaviour can have or lead to.

Exposing yourself in public, often referred to as flashing, is a serious and unacceptable criminal offence. It is not just inappropriate; it can cause genuine fear, distress and long-term psychological harm to those who witness it, especially when the victim is a child or vulnerable person. Flashing is not a harmless prank or joke; it is a violation of personal boundaries and can be deeply traumatic. It demonstrates a lack of respect for others and a disregard for the basic right to feel safe in public spaces. This kind of behaviour erodes trust in the community and contributes to a culture of intimidation and discomfort. It is right that we take every measure to stop indecent exposure.

Proposed new section 66(1A) of the 2003 Act aims to introduce a safeguard by excluding certain scenarios, where the exposure is intended only for a specific person or group, from the offence. In such cases, the offence will not be committed under the sexual gratification limb unless the individual is also reckless as to whether one or more of those people will be caused alarm, distress or humiliation. This provision seeks to ensure that consensual acts of nudity—for example, between partners in a secluded area—are not criminalised simply because they are accidentally witnessed by a third party.

The clause will help to ensure that perpetrators of sexually motivated public exposure, such as flashing, can be held to account even if they deny intending to cause harm. The revised wording offers greater clarity for law enforcement and the courts, ensuring that such harmful behaviours are prosecuted more effectively while also providing reasonable protections for consensual and private conduct.

It has been reported that flashing offences have doubled in a decade, with more than 1,000 instances of indecent exposure being reported to the police every month, but barely one in 10 leads to a charge. In the light of that, can the Minister confirm whether she is confident that new subsection (1A) will not inadvertently create a loophole for perpetrators to evade accountability by claiming that their exposure was intended for only a particular person?

[Jack Rankin]

The clause aims to strengthen the protections for individuals from indecent exposure, and to ensure that our communities remain safe and respectful spaces for all. It seeks to provide clearer definitions and stricter penalties for offences involving indecent exposure so that perpetrators of such offences are held accountable and victims receive the justice that they deserve for this sexual crime.

While sometimes dismissed as minor, exposure of this kind can have a significant psychological and emotional impact on victims. It is not a trivial matter and can often be a precursor to more severe offences, as we saw with the tragic murder of Sarah Everard, and it contributes to a climate of fear and discomfort in public spaces. Multiple incidents of indecent exposure were linked to the convicted murderer of Sarah Everard before the tragic events of her death in March 2021. In 2015 and 2020, allegations of indecent exposure were made against him in Kent, where he was said to have exposed himself in public. Those reports were not fully investigated at the time. In February 2021, just days before he abducted and murdered Sarah Everard, he was reported to police for exposing himself to staff at a McDonald’s drive-through in Kent. Despite that report being made on 28 February, no meaningful action was taken prior to the murder, which occurred on 3 March. Those incidents have since been heavily scrutinised during inquests and reviews, revealing systematic failures in policing responses to sexual offences, especially so-called lower-level offences such as exposure.

While I welcome the expansion of the scope of this offence through clause 57, I urge police to use the new powers and treat these crimes as the serious crimes that they are. They can be a warning of even worse crimes to come. I welcome the Minister’s statement that the College of Policing guidance is being changed appropriately. Being subjected to indecent exposure by a stranger while walking home can leave a woman with lasting trauma. Such behaviour is unacceptable and should be met with appropriate consequences.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for Windsor for his important contribution. It is right that we expand the scope of the offence to ensure that all victims are properly protected and that perpetrators are brought to adequate justice. As he rightly pointed out, justice is a system; it needs every part to work. We need to ensure that the police are equipped with the guidance, training and tools to go after these foul perpetrators—they need to know what to do, what to look for and who to find. They should be taking this seriously, so I am glad that the College of Policing guidance is now in place. We need the CPS to have the offences available to charge the perpetrators—that is what this Bill will provide—and then we need the court system to be available to hear the cases so that justice can be brought.

The shadow Minister sought reassurance that perpetrators would be brought to justice. As I have just outlined, we are assured that we have all the tools available; we just need to stop these acts taking place. This modest but vital step is part of our wider strategy to halve violence against women and girls. These crimes may be low level and classed as non-contact, but sadly we all know what happens when they escalate. It is important that we take them seriously and have robust laws in place to deal with them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 57 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58

Sexual activity with a corpse

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

The clause updates and strengthens the current offence of sexual activity involving a corpse, as set out in section 70 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The revised provisions broaden the scope of the offence by replacing the term “sexual penetration” with the more encompassing term “sexual activity”. The clause replicates a provision of the Conservative Government’s Criminal Justice Bill, which fell due to the 2024 general election. The change ensures that any form of intentional sexual touching of a dead body—not just acts of penetration—will be captured by the law.

Many members of the public are shocked to hear that these vile and horrific offences take place, and will be further shocked that some of this activity is not covered by the law. Currently, section 70 of the 2003 Act defines the offence of sexual penetration of a corpse. That offence applies when a person intentionally sexually penetrates the body of a deceased individual, and knows or is reckless as to whether the body is that of a deceased person. The offence carries a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment.

As the Minister mentioned, the provision was notably used in the high-profile case of David Fuller, a former hospital electrician who was convicted under section 70 for multiple instances of sexual penetration involving the bodies of at least 100 women and girls in hospital mortuaries. However, the current scope of section 70 does not extend to non-penetrative sexual acts, so it could not have been used to prosecute further allegations against Fuller relating to other forms of sexual activity with the bodies of his victims. Under this legislation, a person commits an offence if they intentionally touch a part of a dead person’s body, with that touching being sexual in nature, and if they either know or are reckless as to the fact that the body is that of a deceased person.

The clause also provides a new, tiered sentencing structure. Where the sexual activity involves penetration, the offence carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment. In all other cases, the maximum penalty is five years. These sentencing thresholds aim to reflect the seriousness of the conduct, while allowing courts flexibility to reflect the nature of the offence. The new offence introduces different maximum sentences depending on whether penetration is involved. Can the Minister explain how these sentencing thresholds were determined, and have the Government considered how the updated offence aligns with comparable offences in other jurisdictions? Does this bring us into line with international best practice?

[Jack Rankin]

There have been some truly harrowing cases that have exposed the inadequacies of our current legal framework in this regard. As both the Minister and the shadow Minister highlighted, the case of David Fuller is the obvious and most extreme example—a hospital electrician who, over 12 years, sexually abused the bodies of more than 100 women and girls in women and mortuaries. His crimes went undetected for decades, revealing significant systematic failure. I fully support the clause that the Minister has outlined, particularly because, as Baroness Noakes has highlighted during parliamentary debates, had Fuller not been convicted of murder, he might have faced only a minimal sentence for his other offences.

I have several critical questions on clause 58. I appreciate that the clause would significantly increase the penalty, but are those proposed penalties sufficient? Given the gravity of these offences, should the maximum sentence not be even higher, so that it serves as a stronger deterrent? Take the example of David Fuller. If we had caught him before the murder, under the provisions of the Bill, would he have been given seven years, and is that enough? What safeguards are in place? How can institutions, especially hospitals and funeral homes, implement stricter protocols to prevent such abuses? Perhaps the Minister can comment on that. How do we support the victims’ families? Beyond legal measures, what support systems are available to help families to cope with the trauma inflicted by disgusting crimes such as this? Clause 58 is clearly a necessary and long overdue reform that acknowledges the sanctity of the deceased and the rights of the families, and provides greater justice for those who can no longer speak for themselves. I welcome it.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I welcome the comments from the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Windsor. Both touched on sentencing, and I am happy to address their questions. We have considered a range of options. Increasing the statutory maximum for section 70 to seven years is in keeping with the other serious contact offences in the Sexual Offences Act, while it remains lower than most of the serious contact sexual offences against living victims. Sexual assault and rape, for example, have a maximum penalty of 10 years and life imprisonment respectively. The statutory maximum set out in the clause is for a single offence. If a person receives multiple convictions for this offence, or if that offence is committed alongside other offences, then the court may adjust the overall sentence to reflect the totality of the offending in the ordinary way.

We also heard strong evidence of the harm caused by this offending to victims’ families and believe that two years does not reflect the harm caused. We have, therefore, considered, in particular, the serious emotional and psychological distress and the feelings of shame and embarrassment that the families undergo, knowing that the bodies of their loved ones have been sexually abused. It is therefore right that the new law takes

“Concealment, destruction, defilement or dismemberment of the body”

as a factor that indicates high culpability on the part of the offender, and that a more serious punishment may, therefore, be appropriate.

I remind hon. Members that we currently have a sentencing review in place, which is reviewing all the offences available and looking at this. That independent review is ongoing and we anticipate that it will report this year. We are also aware that the Law Commission is considering a review of the criminal law around the desecration of bodies as part of its next programme of law reform. We are currently discussing the possibility of looking into this with it. Let me reassure Members that we are not stopping and that we will not hesitate to go further if required.

On the support available for victims, I would like to reassure the hon. Member for Windsor that victim support is always available for anyone who has been a victim of crime, whether or not that crime has been reported to the police. I encourage any victim, survivor or family to reach out to victim support. The Ministry of Justice funds a number of victim support organisations and provides grants to local police and crime commissioners to provide tailored support in their areas for whatever they feel is necessary. We also have the victims’ code, which outlines exactly what victims are entitled to if they have been a victim of crime, and support is one of the many elements available to them there. I encourage anyone to reach out and seek the support that is available.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 58 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59

Notification of name change

Oral Answers to Questions

Jack Rankin Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

Personal protective equipment is now worn in all kinds of jobs where people may have to deal with dangerous situations. As Professor Acheson has said, it is

“staggering that frontline police staff working in conditions of far greater peril…are not issued with stab vests capable of stopping an attack with a bladed weapon.”

We should all be ensuring that our prison officers come home safe to their loved ones. Unions have called for this measure, and I can assure the Minister that they have the full support of those on the Opposition side of the House. Will he act—not in two months or six months, but now—to protect prison officers before it is too late?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

That is part of the review that has been announced. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor is meeting the Prison Officers Association tomorrow. These things need to be done rightly and properly, and that is what will happen with this Government.

[Jack Rankin]

I thank the Minister for his answer, but I suggest that this is something we should just get on with—it is common sense. There is a more fundamental issue. Perhaps I can invite the Minister to provide his assessment of the relative threats provided by different ideological extremists in prisons, which may be fuelling such violence. Islamist terror suspects make up the vast majority of MI5’s caseload. Do they also make up the majority of radicalising criminals in our prison estate?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The hon. Gentleman urges us to get on with it. By my reckoning, the Conservative party had 14 years to get on with it. We are getting on with it. We set up the snap review straightaway. [Interruption.] “It’s not party political,” he says. Well, people might judge that for themselves by listening to the sort of questioning we have had today.

Sentencing Council Guidelines

Jack Rankin Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

The Sentencing Council was created in April 2010; a month later, the Conservatives came to power. If, as so many on the Conservative Benches seem to think, the Sentencing Council is a shadowy, revolutionary group of activist judges dangerously undermining the British way of life, why on earth did they not do anything about it?

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

I agree with that.

[Jake Richards]

I think they agree with that now—interesting. Does the Lord Chancellor agree that this episode shows that our constitution is working? Parliament is sovereign, and if Parliament seeks to change this guidance, under this Government it will.